I buy CDs to support the artists. When I can, I buy from them directly when they come through our town to play. What a small price to pay to hear their music over and over.

Another thing we and our friends do to help support the artists is to provide lodging and meals to groups that come to town. It is a wonderful way to make a better connection to them and their music.

Tee Joe!

Radio broadcasters and now Internet radio broadcasters pay compulsory fees to BMI, ASCAP, and other agencies that collect royalties for songwriters based on the number of plays, so it's one of the strangest aspects of copyright relating to music: money for the songwriter but not the performer. Another major mystery of copyright for music is the long copyright term for the sound recording. The effect is that the engineer or company capturing and recording the music is protected like a creator, as if the typesetter and bookbinder of a novel had that kind of deal!! Amazing! (My two cents, of course)

- Of course one should pay for the work and efforts that came with producing a CD. But also you should have a chance to listen to what you buy beforehand. If i had the chance to listen to a CD before buying, i wouldn't have bought a lot of 'em. So if i like it, i'll get me an "original" one. F.i. just bought a legal copy of a Jesse Lege and also a Pine Leaf Boys album i don't like so much because of badly done mixes like too loud drums or a sloppy live recording.

- Now a lot of CD's with old reproduced material are out there, where the musicians are no longer getting any financial benefits of such a purchase, and you'll pay only the record company and copyright owners. If it's a nice box & booklet and with well done restoration and de-scratching jobs i usually buy it. But then again you'll find a lot of the re-published material on other CD's as well, at least with older Cajun music you'll find this. Hurray for Neal Pomea's site etc.

- Nout

There is another way to look at this issue.
I don't want to be misunderstood: I am not advocating large-scale bootleg copying of CDs -- that truly would take money out of the pockets of artists.

However, my experience has been that copying music eventually leads to further purchasing of music. Perhaps someone receives a copy of a Pine Leaf Boys CD from a friend, enjoys it, and then finds herself ordering a couple of Savoy Family Band CDs.

The people I know with the largest collection of copied CDs are also the ones I know with the largest number of purchased CDs.

Think of it like radio: the music is being given away for "free," but ultimately, the broadcasting of "samples" eventually leads to sales for artists.

The problems arise when people go out of their way to acquire copies, and grow their music collection entirely of copies through use of illegal online file-sharing etc.

-Andy

I deal with similar issues everyday in my job. Here's the bottom line:

It is theft.

It's theft anytime. It's theft everytime. It's never not theft.

Jude your absolutly right on. If you want to hear what the music is like on a cd listen to internet radio, for example KRVS will almost always tell the listening office what they are playing and the musicians. Go to the artist web site and check to see if they have some cuts from their release. I too have a lot of cd's that I never play. And I never buy from that artist again unless I know from friends that that particular group has made something to listen to. It is just a chance you take sometimes. I know what is out there now and I don't buy everything produced.
But this brings up a another point. We could review cd's right here. A while back I did a cd of the month thing and after very little response to it I stopped doing it. But if we buy a cd tell the people here what you think about it. That might be a good thing for everyone.
Le Piquant

Think about it this way.... Cajun music isn't being bootlegged on a large scale, in the same way most mainstream music is.

I'm willing to lay you odds, that if you search one of those music "sharing" programs, you won't find much Cajun music, unless it's someone extremely popular and already well off financially.

As for me. I'm happy to distribute "my own recordings" (not other peoples) for FREE and anyone can copy them to anyone.

I don't have the luxury of people wanting to buy my music, so I might as well give it out.

Jim funny you should mention your music I have a cd of yours from songs posted on youtube. Your one of my favorite non professional players.

Jim,
Check out Pandora.com. I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of Cajun artists they have.

Tee-J your correct about Pandora being an excellent site for all kinds of cajun music. From that site you can download to real player and from there you can ---- them.

Randy4urself I am not surprised that you have waited long enough to post a comment on this thread. You waited for the subject to change course slightlty before you posted to it. You are one gutsy man.
Le Piquant

Sorry Jude, but you are not 100% correct -- there are times when copying (books, CDs, other copyrighted materials) is not theft. "It is never not theft" is not a true statement in the eyes of the law. U.S. intellectual property law includes a concept of "fair use." "Fair use" isn't my opinion, its a clear set of exceptions that makes your blanket statement incorrect. Incidentally, "fair use" is also what enables libraries to lend recent publications. If it wasn't for "fair use," libraries would have to limit their selections to items that are out of copyright.
"Fair use" applies, among other areas, to copying for use in study. I'm pretty sure that this makes it legal to copy a tune for the purpose of learning to play it on an instrument. Whether or not you are legally permitted to play a particular tune LIVE or on your own recording is another issue altogether! My personal experience has been that most traditional musicians, Cajun or otherwise, are more than happy to allow others to record their tunes as long as credit is given. It is anathema to the concept of traditional music to circulate a tune and then restrict others from playing it.

Also, it used to be the case, with cassette tapes, that manufacturers of cassettes paid into some kind of fund distributed by ASCAP or similar -- I don't recall the details, but it was something like that. I wonder if MP3 player companies, and CDR makers, pay a similar "penalty." With cassettes, as I recall, it was based on the notion that there would be some copying and loss of revenue. Perhaps someone else remembers the details of this, unless the readers here are interested only in banging their hands on the table and declaring blanket accusations of theft rather than understanding that intellectual property, and the politics of traditional music and its relationship to the idea of "individual creativity," are far from being black and white issues.

Finally, I think that those who have their bristles up about copying of small production run CDs are missing the point. Traditional musicians make only a portion of their income off of CD sales (in stores). Playing live, and selling CDs direct, more $$$ makes its way into their pockets. If musicians knew the percentage of their audience (at a show) who attended after listening to copied MP3 files etc, perhaps they would distribute more recordings for free.

When coping printed material or recorded material to be used for reference is one thing. But to borrow, loan, or check out a cd to make a copy for yourself is the issue. That is illegal and as I stated in my initial post on this subject, it is also unethical. I have no patience for people with no moral or ethical compass. I know it is hard and I not claiming to be a saint, New Orleans or other wise. I do things at times that I regret and I try to make up for it. We can only hold ourselves accountable, if we don't then people can choose weather or not they want to associate themselves with the person. Just like a pad lock is meant to keep an honest man honest, so is the FBI warning label on the music we buy. A crook or theif will cut the lock or break the law. Justify all you want if it makes you sleep better ok, tell me what you do and I tell you tell you what you are.
Le Piquant

Is it immoral or illegal if you look at it as redistribution?

Andy,
You're right about the issue of "fair use." But fair use has never been adequately defined legally. Even when a situation appears to be a case of "fair use," most legal minds still insist that permissions be gained before the material is used. (Anyone who has ever published will know this; your publisher will insist you get permissions for all material quoted or reproduced even if it falls under the accepted terms of fair use; it's a nightmare).

In the context of the original question, though, fair use is not a consideration. And it was in that context that I was speaking. That is, duplication of a copyrighted material for personal use/enjoyment outside of an educational setting.

guess I will just listen to my cd's on campus

Not sure if they still exist or not, but there used to be blank CDs labeled specifically for music. They cost more, because they included that licensing fee that cassettes had. Seems the biggest problem was keeping up with the tech and media changes, rewriting copyright law, deciding what was or was not fair use, and of course, the internet. Things changed dramatically when it went from maybe copying an album for a friend to posting it on line. Went from borderline 'fair use' (small scale and not worth going after) to redistribution on a potentially mass scale.
Used to be pretty clear what was right or wrong. But, as access changed, media and technology changes, new wrinkles as to right and wrong gets a little fuzzy. Used to set my VCR to watch a TV show when I wanted to watch it. Now I set to computer to record live broadcasts to listen on my iPod. Is that stealing? It was perfectly legal doing that with the VCR, but it seems a little fuzzy for the iPod. For me, there's no difference as it's for my use only. Same thing with Youtube.
BTW, in a former life (back in the day) I made recordings that have shown up on bootlegs, and with only a minor search, can find the stuff online. I get no money and was never asked for permission. I only bring that up because I know first hand what it's like to be ripped off. That's the main reason I go out of my way to buy directly from the artists.

Thank'y kindly Randy

Well my Friends:

Since I read these postings with interest, and thinking it all through in the pub, while consuming a nice pint of stout to help me there, I must conclude that my thoughts and feelings on these matters are a little differing:

Music is nothing but the freely moves of God's given air molecules and particles roaming unhampered around in special and delicate pressure differences any place anywhere. If one feels like capturing these pressure fluctuations with electronic contraptions and then reproduce them cleverly elsewhere, that will still be God's air molecules freely moving around. You wouldn't be wanting to pay for that to anybody except Your Good and Holy Man Upstairs. If we start doing that we will also have pay weather forecasters on the Television for the forecasts. And you could be paying extra even for any sunshine spot during the day. Although a good thing can be this: We might ask for a general EEC refund on these spendings with all the rain falling down on our beloved Emerald Isle when the barometer drops once again.

Mick O'Foole

Well first one has to believe in God, second God is not a micromanager, thrid even church goer's have to pay tyes to the church. The only thing in life that is free is nothing. Pay up or do without.
Le Piquant
PS don't misunderstand me I do believe in God.

So as progression goes IF we believe in God, then God created man, and man created cd burners. I am one man using God's creation to better my library.

Well you're both fine gents, and very well able to speak for yourselves. But alas our Good Lord has fallen out a little with the Church, and specially those representatives involved in harassing small children, as with those of the male species. As if the devil himself takes control in there, and then even charges you money for that.

Me as a one time True Catholic can very well understand why most of the North of our beloved country turned Protestant, and even how such organizations as the French Huguenot movement came to be. No payments for any God given Gift. The latter preach their values freely out in the open clean air of the Holy Woods and Forests instead I was told. And to pay for anything that belongs to God is a pure blasphemy me thinks. On top of this think this over my friends: with a library goes a librarian as such, with his little finger in the honey jar. Using the excuse he's keeping things well looked after and in order. But what a loss for the Freedom involved in Fine Arts like music. Making it possible one makes foul money out of a magnificent Holy Cure for the aching heart and soul, I tell ya'.

Mick O'Foole

Do you get your ale for free or do you have to pay for the talents and the art form of making ale or stout? God's creations for sure however, man made law and while God is up there man will have to answer to the law of man first.
Le Piquant

Well now my Stingly Man, to answer your question: when you play your accordion well, it proves the points i mentioned earlier: the drinks come Freely Floating my ways, just as the music travels freely around the room of either the lounge or the bar i am at.

But you have gotten your fluidized beverages a little mixed up as far as what one drinks. I am not an advocate of ale, as a matter of fact i don't like that Owls P i s s at all. It's is the real stout i prefer to consume most:



Some more information on these matters: a second choice would only be a glass of Porter:



But will not ever drink this material:



That's a terrible tasting brand resembling the dark fluid coming out of the plug of a car's engine after four intense years of use. It's only intended for the tourists down in Cork and Kerry, saving us the real stout for those originating from our beloved Isle.

Besides, to prove another of my former points: this here apparently 40% Holy Water comes from across your end of the big pond, of which they say 40% of sharing-ownership belongs to by the Un-Holy Part of the Vatican and thus the Pope Himself. Here is the Church tower proving the Un-Holyness of His Papal Ways as for even not having a modest Angelus Bell:



I will drink my first pint of the day to your good health if I may: Sláinte Mhaith!

Mick O'Foole